See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/292138636

COMMUNITY DEPENDENCE ON FISH FARMING: STUDY ON ITS ROLE IN

UPLIFTING THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITION OF FISH FARMERS IN SYLHET
DISTRICT

Article · January 2015

CITATIONS READS
0 157

5 authors, including:

Aminur Rashid Dr Md. Tariqul Alam

Sylhet Agricultural University Sylhet Agricultural University
4 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   65 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Sabiha Sultana Marine Mohammed Ariful Islam

Sylhet Agricultural University Sylhet International University
4 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS    8 PUBLICATIONS   10 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Adaptation of Rani fish (Botia dario) in aquarium: a feasibility study as ornamental fish. View project

PRODUCTION POTENTIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ON SMALL INDIGENOUS FISH SPECIES (SIS) IN TWO FLOODPLAIN BEELS OF RAJSHAHI View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dr Md. Tariqul Alam on 28 January 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

J. Sylhet Agril. Univ. 2(1):97-105, 2015 Research Article ISSN: 2308-1597

COMMUNITY DEPENDENCE ON FISH FARMING: STUDY ON ITS ROLE IN

UPLIFTING THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONDITION OF FISH FARMERS IN SYLHET
DISTRICT

A Rashid*1, M T Alam1, S S Marine2, M A Islam3 and M S I Sarkar4

1
Department of Aquaculture, Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet-3100, Bangladesh
2
Department of Fisheries Technology and Quality Control, Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet-3100, Bangladesh
3
Department of Aquatic Resource Management, Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet-3100, Bangladesh
4
Institute of Marine Science and Fisheries, Chittagong University, Chittagong, Bangladesh

Abstract
An exploratory survey was conducted to investigate farmers dependency on fish farming for their
livelihood in three upazilas of Sylhet district namely Kanighat, Gowainghat and Golabgonj from July
to December 2013. Sixty fish farmers were interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire. The
study showed that in all farming systems middle aged farmers were found the highest percentage
(58.3%). About 55% families of integrated farmers had 6-above members while lowest 35% in semi-
intensive farmers. The highest illiterate (40%) was found in extensive farmers and the lowest 15%
each in semi-intensive and integrated farmers. About 36.67% of the respondents had tin shed house,
18.33% had kacha, 31.67% had half-building and only 13.33% had building. On an average, 13.33%
farmers were used pucka toilets while 20% semi-intensive farmers and 15% integrated farmers used
pucka toilet. The lowest 65% extensive farmers used tubewell water while it was observed 90% for
semi-intensive farmers. About 55% semi intensive farmers got treatment from upazila health complex
while it was only 45% for extensive farmers but a considerable portion depended upon village doctors
where highest (40%) extensive farmers. It was revealed that highest percentage 45% of semi-intensive
farmers gained training from UFO while only 25% of extensive farmers got training from UFO. It was
found that farmers had tremendous scope for harnessing natural resources. No impact of religion was
found on farming but electricity played vital role. It was observed that 60% of extensive farmer’s
primary occupation was agriculture while 20% and 25% semi-intensive and integrated farmer’s
primary occupation was agriculture, respectively. Self-financed farmers occupied the highest position
in all types of farming. Significant difference was found in annual income among the farming systems
as highest income (2,65,250 BDT) in semi intensive farming and lowest (95,500 BDT) in extensive
farming. Main constraints were inadequate supply of quality fingerlings (26.67%), high production
cost (21.67%) and the low quality feed (18.33%). The livelihood outcomes found positive and 76.67%
farmers viewed that they have improved their socio-economic conditions. Necessary training on
scientific fish culture, establishment of hatchery by GOs and NGOs to ensure quality fingerlings and
massive extension work can mitigate the problems of fish culture in the study area.

Keywords: Livelihood, fish farming, socio-economic condition, respondent farmers, Sylhet

Introduction
Aquaculture has become a promising, dynamic and gainful approach to attain self-sufficiency in food sector by
promoting food security and also to alleviate poverty in Bangladesh (Ahmed, 2003). It plays a vital role in socio-
economic development of rural areas, fulfilling the increasing animal protein demand, creating employment
opportunity, alleviating poverty and earning foreign currency. In our country farmers are adopted with different
types of farming viz. extensive, semi intensive and integrated and the farming system plays a vital role for uplifting
the livelihood conditions of the farmer’s community. FAO (2001) describes that a farming system as a population of
individual farm systems that have broadly similar resource bases, enterprise patterns, household’s livelihoods and
constraints and for which similar development strategies and intervention would be appropriate. Ker (1995) denotes

*Corresponding author: A Rashid, Department of Aquaculture, Sylhet Agricultural University, Sylhet -3100,
Bangladesh. Email: aminur0579sau@gmai.com
Rashid et al. (2015)

that depending on the scale of the analysis, a farming system can encompass a few dozens or many millions of
households.

"A livelihood comprises the capabilities, assets (including both material and social resources) and activities required
for a means of living. A livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and
maintain or enhance its capabilities and assets both now and in the future (Carney, 1998). The rural livelihood
especially the fish farmer’s livelihood is greatly influenced by fish farming. Income-generating opportunities for
rural households are most promising in the fisheries sector (DoF, 2006). The fisheries sector is the second largest
part-time and full-time employer in rural areas, directly engaging over 60% of the rural population (BBS, 2010).

Sylhet, the north eastern district of Bangladesh is one of the most fascinating and archeologically rich regions in
South East Asia. It also fascinates with vast fisheries resources such as haors, open water floodplains, rivers, canals
etc. Fish farming is not popular in greater Sylhet region due to lack of proper technical knowledge, insufficient
supply of fish broods, nonavailability of fish seeds, ignorance of fish farmers, proper marketing channel, reserve of
foreign remittance, etc. Information on socio-economic frame work of the fish farmers forms a good base for
planning and development of the economically backward sector (Ofuoku et al. 2008). FAO (2001) indicates that
over the past 30 years, the FSA (Farming System Approach) has evolved markedly. Essentially the scope of the
analysis has gradually expanded, placing increasing emphasis on horizontal and vertical integration, on multiple
sources of household’s livelihoods and on the role of the community the environment and support services.

Lack of adequate and authentic information on socio-economic conditions of the target populations is one of the
serious impediments in the successful implementation of the development program (Ellis, 2000).

Therefore, this work was undertaken to explore the opportunities and constraints for fish farming and livelihood
status of fish farmers, as well as the management systems practiced at local levels including the small-scale farmers
in Sylhet region considering the following objectives.
 To know the socio-economic conditions and livelihood status of fish farmers in the study area, and

 To find out the influence of farming system on livelihood of fish farmers.

Materials and Methods

The present study was conducted based on community focused field survey where primary data were collected from
fish farmers to obtain detailed information on their fish farming system and livelihood status. Three upazilas namely
Kanighat, Golabgonj and Goainghat of Sylhet district were selected for the study. Data were collected from 20
extensive farmers, 20 semi-intensive farmers and 20 integrated fish farmers in the study areas. For collecting data
both individual and group interviews were applied with different degrees of effectiveness of the farmer’s
information. The data were collected from July to December 2013. The draft questionnaire was tested by the
opinion of 12 fish farmers and much attention was given to any new information which was not designed to be
asked but was important and informative to fulfill the objectives. For this research one of the PRA (Participatory
Rural Appraisal) tool and Focus Group Discussion (FGD) was conducted where each group size of FGD was 4 to 7
farmers. After collecting the data through questionnaire interviews and FGD, crosscheck interviews were conducted
with Upazila Fisheries Officer, Assistant Fisheries Officer, relevant NGO workers, Chairman and Members of the
Union councils. Before the tabulation the collected data were scrutinized and summarized carefully. The processed
data were transferred to a master sheet from which classified tables were prepared revealing the findings of the
study. After data entry, the data were analyzed with computer programs Microsoft Excel and SPSS (Statistical
Package for Social Science) 11.5.

Results and Discussion

Livelihood status of fish farmers
DFID distinguishes five categories of assets or capital viz. natural, social, human, physical and financial (Carney,
2002). In aquaculture, natural assets include fish species raised, physical capital includes constructed ponds, human

98
Role of community dependence on fish farming

capital includes knowledge of fish culture, financial capital includes income from selling fish and social capital
includes the use of pond water for washing, bathing etc. by other community households (Little and Edwards, 2007).

Human capital
Skills, knowledge, ability to labor and good health are considered as human capital that together enables people to
pursue their livelihood strategies.
Age structure
In the study area middle age group occupied the highest position (58.33%) followed by old (20%) and young
(21.66%) in all farming system (Fig. 1). In case of semi-intensive and integrated farming young age group occupied
30% and 20%, respectively where in extensive farming it was 25%. Mondal et al. (2012) stated that most farmers
were quite young with an average age estimated at 39 years ranging from 25 to 56. Ali et al. (2008) found that most
of the fish farmers (50%) belong to age group of 31 to 40 years in Mymensingh district which is related to this
present study. The young aged farmers were increasing as they acquainted with modern techniques of fish culture.

Fig. 1. Age structure of fish farmers

Fig. 2. Family size of fish farmers

99
Rashid et al. (2015)

Family size
It was revealed that the highest percentage (45%) of family consists of 6-above members and 30%, 25% family
consists of 2-3, 4-5 members, respectively. In case of integrated farmers 55% family had 6-above members while
lowest in semi-intensive farmers 35% (Fig. 2). Tanzeena et al. (2007), Ali et al. (2008) and Rejwan et al. (2012)
found 4.56 of average family members, 52% family belonged 4-5 members and 45% family belonged 4-5 members,
respectively which are similar to this study.
Level of education
About 45% of the interviewed extensive farmers were illiterate and lowest (15%) illiterate farmers were found in
semi-intensive and integrated farmers. It’s a matter of hope that graduate people were involved in fish farming
where 10% and 15% for semi-intensive and extensive farmers respectively (Table 1). Study showed that 25%
extensive and 30% integrated farmers educated up to primary level while the highest 35% occupied semi-intensive
farmers. Tanjeena et al. (2007) found majority (14.4%) of the fish farmers were educated up to primary level
followed by secondary level (8.9%) and higher secondary or above (6.7%). Quddus et al. (1998) reported that there
were no illiterate pond owners at Demra area of Dhaka.

Table 1. Level of education of fish farmers

Level of education Extensive Semi-intensive Integrated farmer Average (%)
farmer (%) farmer (%) (%)
Illiterate 40 15 15 23.33
Can sign 15 5 10 10
Can read 5 5 5 5
Primary 25 35 30 30
Secondary 15 15 10 13.33
Higher secondary 0 15 15 10
Bachelor 0 10 15 8.33
Religious status
In the study area the percentage of the Muslim and the Hindu farmers were 85% and 15%, respectively while
highest percentage 90% of Muslim farmers was found in extensive farming. It can be noted that there was no impact
of religion on farming systems. Tanjeena et al. (2006) were found 90% Muslim farmers and 10% Hindu farmers at
Mohanpur upazila of Rajshahi district, which is related to this study.
Physical capitals
Transport, road, market, electricity, water supply, sanitary and health facilities are the physical capital of fish farming
that enable people to pursue their livelihood strategies (Mondal et al. 2012).
Housing condition
It was found that majority (36.67%) of the respondents had tin shed house, 18.33% had kacha, 31.67% had half-
building and only 13.33% had building (Table 2). Highest percentage (35%) of kacha house was found in case of
extensive farmers while semi-intensive and integrated was 10% each. Pijush et al. (2013) reported that 70% house
of fish farmers was made of tin-shed, 20% half building and 10% building of Shahrasti upazila of Chandpur district.
Shariful (2011) reported that 80% of housing structures were tin shed, while 15% were katcha, 5% were half-
building at Moulvibazar district.
Drinking water facilities
Among the interviewed farmers 75% of the farmers used tube well water, 10% river water, 15% pond water. About
90% of semi-intensive and integrated farmers used tubewell water as drinking water while it was only 65% for
extensive farmers (Table 2). Ali et al. (2008) found that about 88% used own tube well and 12% used neighbors
tubewell water at Bagmara upazilla under Rajshahi district.

100
Role of community dependence on fish farming

Table 2. Housing, drinking water and healthcare facilities of fish farmers

Category of house of fish farmers
Category of house Extensive farmer (%) Semi-intensive Integrated farmer (%) Average (%)
farmer (%)
Kacha 35 10 10 18.33
Tinshed 40 35 35 36.67
Half-building 15 40 40 31.67
Building 10 15 15 13.33
Total 100 100 100 100
Drinking water facilities of the farmers
Tubewell 65 80 80 75
River 15 10 5 10
Pond 20 10 15 15
Total 100 100 100 100
Health centre/ Medical facilities of fish farmers
Village doctor 40 30.0 35 33.3
Upazila health complex 45 55.0 50.0 50.0
District hospital 10 15.0 10.0 11.7
Do not get treatment 5 5.0 5.0
Total 100 100 100 100.0
Sanitary facilities
The Sanitary facilities of farmers were taken into consideration and it was observed that on average 13.33% farmers
were used pucka toilet while 20% semi-intensive farmers and 15% integrated farmers used pucka toilet and
extensive farmers used the highest percent (35%) of katcha toilet (Fig. 3).
Ali et al. (2008) found that 62.5% of the farmers had semi-pucca, 25% had kacha and 12.5% had pucka toilet in
Mymensingh district. Rahman et al. (2012) found about 95% kacha, 3% semi-pucka and 2% pucka at fisher’s
community of nijhum dhip of Noakhali district.
Health Centre/ Medical facilities
The study revealed that 55% of semi-intensive farmers got treatment from upazila health complex while it was 45%
and 50% for extensive and integrated farmers, respectively (Table 2). Highest percentage (40%) of extensive
farmers depends on village doctor for regular treatment while it was 30% and 35% for semi-intensive and integrated
farmers, respectively. Alam (2006) found that only 42% of the farmers in the Mithapukur upazila under Rangpur
district got the treatment from upazila health complex while the rest 58% depend on village doctor and others.

Fig. 3. Sanitary facilities of the fish farmers

101
Rashid et al. (2015)

Electricity facilities
The studied area was not taken under full electricity and extensive farmers enjoyed lowest (45%) electricity facilities
while highest 75% of semi-intensive farmers used electricity. Shariful (2011) stated that about 79% farmers had
electricity at Srimongal upazila under Moulvibazar district which is similar to this study. Mondal et al. (2012) found
that electricity supply was limited despite the delay of the rural electrification board and only 29% of farmers had
electricity.
Fish marketing system
From the survey it was found that 51.67% farmers sold their product into local market and 18.33% sold in urban
market. About 60% of extensive farmers sold their product into local market while the percentage of semi-intensive
and integrated farmers was 45% and 50%, respectively. Only 25% semi-intensive farmers sold fish in urban market
while it was 10% and 20% for extensive and semi-intensive farmers, respectively. However the choosing of market
depends on the total catch, transportation facilities, price of fish, demand of fish etc. Mondal et al. (2012) found
80% harvested fishes were sold in district market of Mymensingh and 20% sold in the local market of Fulpur
upazila.
Social capitals
Acquired experience/ training
According to the survey it was revealed that highest percentage 45% of semi-intensive farmers gained training from
UFO while only 25% extensive farmers gained training from UFO. A major portion (50%) of extensive farmers
gained knowledge of fish farming from friends and neighbors while it was 20% and 30% for semi-intensive and
integrated farmers respectively (Table 3). Some NGOs give technical and financial support for fish culture and it
was 20%, 30%, 25% of extensive, semi-intensive and integrated farmers, respectively from NGOs. Pijush et al.
(2013) reported that only 34% farmers received necessary training. Ali et al. (2008) found that 60% farmers got
technical assistance, 22% farmers from others (self-study), while 8% and 10% from Department of Fisheries and
NGOs, respectively. Similar result was found by Zaman (2006) and Hossain et al. (1992).

Table 3. Acquired experience/ training of fish farmers

Category Extensive farmer Semi-intensive Integrated farmer Average (%)

(%) farmer (%) (%)
NGO 20 30 25 25
UFO 25 45 35 35
Neighbors and friends 50 20 30 33.33
Others 5 5 10 6.67
Total 100 100 100 100
Natural capitals
In the study areas almost all farmers have own houses and dependent on natural environment for water. Presence of
canal, ponds and existence of floodplains in the vicinity of the study area offer tremendous scope for harnessing
natural resources for sustainable livelihood management of the fish farmers and fishing community.
Financial capitals
Source of income
In the study area most of the farmers were involved with more than one occupation to earn their livelihood.
Primary and Secondary occupation
In the study area it was found that 60% of extensive farmer’s primary occupation was agriculture while it was 20%
and 25% for semi-intensive and integrated farmers. Beside primary occupation 40% of the semi-intensive farmers
considered fish culture as their secondary occupation while it was 45% for integrated farmers. Tanjeena et al. (2006)
found that agriculture was the main occupation of 51.1% and aquaculture was the main occupation of 18.9%
farmers. Saha (2004) reported that 41% pond owners were related to agriculture and 9% to fish culture as their main
occupation which is little bit deviation from this study.

102
 Role of community dependence on fish farming

Table 4: Different occupational level of fish farmers.

Occupations Extensive farmer Semi-intensive Integrated farmer Average (%)
(%) farmer (%) (%)
Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary Primary Secondary
Agriculture 60 35 20 45 25 40 35 40
Fish culture 30 60 55 35 50 45 45 46.67
Business 5 5 10 0 10 10 6.67 5
Service 5 0 5 10 10 5 3.33 5
Migrant Worker 0 0 10 10 5 0 5 3.33
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Source of fund
In the present study it was found that 68.33% farmers used their own money and 11.67% farmers received loan from
bank and 20% from self and NGOs. Rather than self-funding it was observed that 15%, 20% and 25% extensive,
semi-intensive and integrated farmers, respectively took loan from NGOs (Fig. 4). Similar result was found by
Pijush et al. (2013) where 80% farmers used their own money, 8% farmers received loan from bank and 12% fish
farmers received loan from other sources like different NGOs.

Fig. 4. Source of fund of fish farmers

Annual income
Significant difference was found in annual income among the farming systems as highest income (2,65,250) in semi
intensive farming and lowest (95,500) in extensive farming (Table 5). Reason behind the highest income in semi-
intensive farming as the highest input such as appropriate feeding and fertilization were done in this type of farming.
Pijush et al. (2013) found that annual income of fish farmers varied from 24000 to 10000 BDT which is not similar
to the present study.

Table 5. Annual incomes of the fish farmers

Annual Income Extensive farmer Semi-intensive farmer Integrated farmer Average (%)
(%) (%) (%)
Income 95500±20074.85b 265250.4±111458.91a 214300±97332.36a 191683.5±111019.24
Constraints of production
The highest percentage (35%) farmers stated inadequate supply of quality fingerlings was the main problem of
integrated farmers while 15% extensive and 30% semi-intensive farmers stated this problem. Thirty percent
extensive farmer stated lack of operational capital as their main problem. Hossain (2006) and Rahman (2003)
reported that lack of money and higher production costs were the main problem. Mondal et al. (2012) found that the
main constraint of aquaculture was lack of operational capital in Mymensingh district.

103
Rashid et al. (2015)

Livelihood outcomes and socio-economic condition

In the study area 76.67% people stated that they were benefited by fish farming and only 23.33% failed due to lack
of proper technical knowledge, operational capital, disease problem etc. Among all the farming system found in the
study area semi-intensive farming considered the best farming. Need technical support and financial assistance for
converting the farmers to intensive farming.Ahmed S A, Quamruzzaman K M, Halim G M A and Rashid M A.
2008. Summer hybrid tomato variety and production technology (in Bengali). Olericulture D ivision, HRC, BARI,
Gazipur. 16p.
Table 6. Key constraints of fish production
Key constraints Extensive Semi-intensive Integrated Average
farmer (%) farmer (%) farmer (%) (%)
Lack of operational capital 30 10 10 16.67
High production costs 20 25 20 21.67
Inadequate supply of quality fingerlings 15 30 35 26.67
Poor feed quality 5 25 25 18.33
Inadequate technical knowledge 25 5 5 11.67
Fish disease 5 5 5 5
Total 100 100 100 100
Table 7. Status of socio-economic condition
Improved socio-economic Extensive Semi-intensive Integrated farmer Average (%)
conditions farmer (%) farmer (%) (%)
No 35 15 20 23.33
Yes 65 85 80 76.67

References
Ahmed F. 2003. Comparative study on carp polyculture practices of three different NGOs in Mymensingh district.
MS thesis, Department of Aquaculture, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh. 65p.
Alam G. 2006. Status of fish farming and livelihoods of fish farmers in some selected areas of Mithapuqur upazila in
Rangpur district. MS Thesis, Department of Fisheries Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University,
Mymensingh. 59p.
Ali M H, Hossain M D, Hasan A N G M, and Bashar M A. 2008. Assessment of the livelihood status of the fish
farmers in some selected areas of Bagmara upazilla under Rajshahi district. J. Bangladesh Agril. Univ.
6(2):367–374.
BBS (Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics). 2010. Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh. Dhaka: Bangladesh Bureau of
Statistics. Planning division, Ministry of Planning, Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh.
Carney D. 1998. Implementing the sustainable rural livelihoods approach. In: D. Carney (ed.) Sustainable Rural
Livelihoods, What contribution can we make? DFID, London, UK.
Carney D. 2002. Implementing the sustainable rural livelihoods approach. DFID, London, UK.
DoF (Department of Fisheries) 2006. Fishery Statistical Yearbook of Bangladesh 2003-2004. Matshya Bhaban,
Dhaka: Fisheries Resources Survey System, Department of Fisheries, Ministry of Fisheries and Livestock
(MoFL).
Ellis F. 2000. The Determinants of Rural Livelihood Diversification in Developing Countries. J. Agric. Economics,
51:289-302.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2001. Integrated agriculture-aquaculture: a primer. FAO Fisheries
Technical Papers. T 407. 149 Rome, Italy: FAO/ICLARM/IIRR.
Hossain M S, Dewan S, Islam M S and Hossain S M A. 1992. Survey of pond fishery resources in a village of
Mymensingh district. Bangladesh J. Aquaculture, 14-16: 33-37.
Ker A. 1995. Farming systems of the African Savana: A continent in crisis. International Development Research
Centre. ISBN 0-88936-793-0.
Little D C and Edwards P. 2007. Alternative Strategies for Livestock-fish Integration with Emphasis on Asia
Ambio. 28:118-124.

104
 Role of community dependence on fish farming

Mondal M A H, Ali M M, Sarma P K and Alam M K. 2012. Assessment of aquaculture as a means of sustainable
livelihood development in Fulpur upazila under Mymensingh district. J. Bangladesh Agril. Univ. 10(2):
391–402.
Quddus M A. and Akbar M A, 1998. A study on the investment-income relationship of the inland water fishermen.
Bangladesh J. Agril. Sci. 22 (1):171-178.
Ofuoku A U, Emah G N and Itedjere B E. 2008. Information utilization among rural fish farmers in central
agricultural zone of Delta State, Nigeria. World J. Agric. Sci. 4(5):558-564.
Pijush P, Sarker B S, Rahman M and Hossain B. 2013. Present status of fish farming and livelihood of fish farmers
in Shahrasti upazila of Chandpur District, Bangladesh.American-Eurasian J. Agric. And Environ. Sci. 13
(3):391-397.
Rahman M M. 2003. Socio-economic aspects of carp culture development in Gazipur, Bangladesh. MS Thesis,
Department of Fisheries Management, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh. 72 p.
Rejwan K M, Audhikary R K, Hossain B and Minar H M. 2012. Livelihood status of fishermen of the old
Brahmaputra river, Bangladesh. World Applied Sciences Journal. 16 (6):869-873.
Saha S K. 2004. Socio-economic aspects of aquaculture in Tangail sadar upazila. MS thesis, Department of
Aquaculture, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh, 77p.
Sarker R K. 2007. Effects of training on the livelihood management of the fish farmers in Trishal upazila under
Mymensingh district. MS Thesis, Department of Fisheries Management, Bangladesh Agricultural
University, Mymensingh.
Shariful I. 2011. Studies on pond fish farming and livelihoods of rural fish farmers in some selected areas of
Moulvibazar district, MS Thesis. Department of Fisheries Management. Bangladesh Agricultural
University, Mymensingh. 21p
Tanjeena Z, Jewel M A S and Bhuiyan A S. 2007. Present status of pond fishery resources and livelihood of the fish
farmers of Mohanpur upazila in Rajshahi District. Univ. J. Zool. Rajshahi University. 25: 31-35.
Zaman M M. 2006. Socio-economic condition of the fishing communities of Karotoa river. MS Thesis, Department
of Aquaculture, BAU, Mymensingh. 57p.

105

View publication stats